Another Approach To Projecting Andrew Cogliano

Jonathan Willis
April 29 2009 07:19PM

Cogliano

I read an article on Irreverent Oiler Fans the other day that started me wondering on the offensive potential of Andrew Cogliano. That post worked backwards; looking at NHL impact players and identifying what percentage of them had similar seasons at the same age. What I’m about to do is the opposite; I’ll look at players who had similar offensive seasons to Andrew Cogliano and attempt to establish what range of offense he’s likely to produce as an NHL’er.

To do this, I’m going to use the “power play” function at Hockey Reference, which allows searches based on certain criteria. Let’s take a quick look at Cogliano’s season before we decide on our criteria.

Cogliano: 82GP – 18G – 20A – 38PTS, -6 (.46 PTS/GM)

I’ve decided to do a search of seasons by 21-year olds with the following requirements:

  • Must have occurred within the past ten years
  • Must have recorded between .37 and .55 PTS/GM (20% variance in either direction)
  • Must have appeared in a minimum of 50 games
  • Must have been the player’s second NHL season

I got back a field of sixteen possible seasons (including Cogliano). Three of those occurred this season – Martin Hanzal and Sergei Kostitsyn, so those were eliminated. I also eliminated Milan Michalek, Brandon Dubinsky and David Krejci, since their first NHL seasons consisted of less than ten games. Here’s the remaining field:

  • Corey Perry: 0.54 PTS/GM (2007)
  • Mike Richards: 0.54 PTS/GM (2007)
  • Steve Bernier: 0.50 PTS/GM (2007)
  • Maxim Afinogenov: 0.46 PTS/GM (2001)
  • Radim Vrbata: 0.46 PTS/GM (2003)
  • Henrik Sedin: 0.44 PTS/GM (2002)
  • Daniel Sedin: 0.41 PTS/GM (2002)
  • Rostislav Olesz: 0.40 PTS/GM (2007)
  • Josef Vasicek: 0.40 PTS/GM (2002)

That gives us nine possible comparables. We should also look at how those players performed in their first and third seasons. The first season is to compare to Cogliano’s for closeness, and the third to show the range of production we should expect from Cogliano next year. First, here’s Cogliano’s rookie year:

Cogliano: 82GP – 18G – 27A – 45PTS, +1 (.55 PTS/GM)

Here’s how the list stacks up:

  • Name | First Season | Third Season |
  • Mike Richards | .43 PTS/GM | 1.03 PTS/GM
  • Corey Perry | .45 PTS/GM | .77 PTS/GM
  • Josef Vasicek | .40 PTS/GM | .55 PTS/GM
  • Henrik Sedin | .35 PTS/GM | .50 PTS/GM
  • Maxim Afinogenov | .52 PTS/GM | .49 PTS/GM
  • Rostislav Olesz | .36 PTS/GM | .46 PTS/GM
  • Steve Bernier | .69 PTS/GM | .42 PTS/GM
  • Daniel Sedin | .45 PTS/GM | .39 PTS/GM
  • Radim Vrbata | .58 PTS/GM | .31 PTS/GM

Two players took massive steps forward in their third season (Richards, Perry) while one took a massive step back (Vrbata). That direction has so far shown which way their careers have gone – the players taking big steps forward are now legitimate first-liners, while Vrbata has had one good season since but is not currently playing in the NHL. The other six fluctuated slightly up or down. Of that group of six, three (Vasicek, Olesz, Bernier) are either complementary players or look to be heading in that direction, while the other three (Sedin, Afinogenov, Sedin) have been or are first-line players.

One thing that I find particularly surprising is the way this group clusters – a player is either at one end of it or the other. So what does this mean for Andrew Cogliano? I’d suggest that while we can’t draw many definite conclusions, there is one in particular that is important: Cogliano’s performance to date does not preclude him from becoming an offensive difference maker.

While I have repeatedly suggested that Andrew Cogliano may be useful trade bait given that he is a quality player with attributes (small size, youth, offensive ability) the Oilers have in plenty, this list makes me a little more hesitant to trade him. I’ve been projecting Cogliano all along as topping out as a second-tier offensive talent, and the fact that multiple players (better than half the sample: Richards, Perry, Sedin, Sedin, Afinogenov) went on to have a high-end offensive game makes me reconsider that projection. It may very well be that Andrew Cogliano has greater offensive talent than he’s been given credit for to date.

74b7cedc5d8bfbe88cf071309e98d2c3
Jonathan Willis is a freelance writer. He currently works for Oilers Nation, the Edmonton Journal and Bleacher Report. He's co-written three books and worked for myriad websites, including Grantland, ESPN, The Score, and Hockey Prospectus. He was previously the founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue.
Avatar
#51 Archaeologuy
April 30 2009, 10:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Chris: I dont even know where to begin with this. So Cogs shooting percentage has been higher than Richards his whole career and you think its a knock against him? You think that his percentage needs to increase in order for him to produce more? So apparently playing more minutes and on one of the top 2 lines wont increase his shots on net and quality of teammates? Your line of reasoning of here is completely faulty.

Perry puts up twice as many shots? That wouldnt have something to do with him playing on the 1st line would it? Lots of people have been over-valued, but I doubt that Cogs is one of them considering so many people think he should be moved.

And Willis didnt TRY to compare Cogs with Richards and Perry, he DID compare them. And for some reason those players CAN be compared. The numbers are there. So instead of dismissing those numbers completely because you're a Flames fan, why dont you come up with some kind of context that explains why Cogs' numbers are Perry and Richards like.

Avatar
#52 Archaeologuy
April 30 2009, 10:25AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

RossCreek wrote:

My stats sheet says 5-11 to 5-9, 197 to 179. I know there’s always lies within these stats, but thats my info.

Mine was from the Oilers site and the NHL stats section. Cogs 5'10 184 Dats 5'11 195 or 194 i cant remember

Avatar
#53 Q
April 30 2009, 10:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Archaeologuy wrote:

@ Chris: I dont even know where to begin with this. So Cogs shooting percentage has been higher than Richards his whole career and you think its a knock against him? You think that his percentage needs to increase in order for him to produce more? So apparently playing more minutes and on one of the top 2 lines wont increase his shots on net and quality of teammates? Your line of reasoning of here is completely faulty. Perry puts up twice as many shots? That wouldnt have something to do with him playing on the 1st line would it? Lots of people have been over-valued, but I doubt that Cogs is one of them considering so many people think he should be moved. And Willis didnt TRY to compare Cogs with Richards and Perry, he DID compare them. And for some reason those players CAN be compared. The numbers are there. So instead of dismissing those numbers completely because you’re a Flames fan, why dont you come up with some kind of context that explains why Cogs’ numbers are Perry and Richards like.

Good point - I think a lot of the Cog-haters here are ignoring the fact that Willis did not go out to find a comparison to some of the top young talent in the league, but let the number that Cogs has put up show that he is comparable to them in their second year. Of course, the discussion has mostly avoided the fact that Cogs could be out of the league in 5 years if he doesn't sustain or improve.

My feeling is that based on the flashes he has shown in limited 3rd line work, to trade him now would be the height of foolishness. And the clues that Tambellini has given out make me think he is no fool. I suspect he will tinker with a couple of UFA's to complement his core group. And hopefully that does not include Kotalik. He does not add anything we do not have already.

Avatar
#54 Jonathan Willis
April 30 2009, 10:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Chris wrote:

This isn’t exactly the boldest statement EVER Willis. Of course at 21 Coglino’s fullest potential is unknown. You can say that about any NHL/player or prospect.

I offer bold statements, I get criticized for being polarizing. I offer moderate, reasonable statements, I get criticized for not being bold. What a life ;)

In any case, prior to doing this sampling, I would have said that a player with Cogliano's track record rounds out into a 60-point scorer; basically, I would have been confident saying that his offensive game isn't going to eclipse Mike Comrie's.

After doing this sampling, I can't say that with any amount of certainty because a very good group of NHL'ers have posted similar numbers ot Cogliano and gone on to better things.

I would be wrong if I were to say that Cogliano definitely will not reach a Perry/Richards level of offense, but I'd be equally wrong to say that he definitely will reach that level of offense either. All this sampling has done is show that it's within the realm of possiblity that Cogliano will reach the PPG level, and that's something I would have been much more skeptical about prior to doing it.

Avatar
#55 Chris
April 30 2009, 10:40AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Jonathan Willis:

I generally like your stuff, but this piece is not up to your usual high standard.

I read a similar offering several years ago that took Schremp's 05/06 OHL totals and used the same logic you employed here to generate a list of players by which we could evaluate Schremps offensive potential. Top of that list was none other than Wayne Gretzky. Well Schremp was never in danger of EVER being anything close to the player Gretzky was... And it is similarly laughable to let Oiler fans dream of Coglino becomming Correy Perry if just given a few more years...

Now I know your comparison didn't cross leagues, or hockey era's... but the logic is seriously flawed nonetheless.

@ Archaeologuy:

Willis got you hook line and sinker buddy. Let it go.

Avatar
#56 Q
April 30 2009, 10:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Chris wrote:

@ Jonathan Willis: I generally like your stuff, but this piece is not up to your usual high standard. I read a similar offering several years ago that took Schremp’s 05/06 OHL totals and used the same logic you employed here to generate a list of players by which we could evaluate Schremps offensive potential. Top of that list was none other than Wayne Gretzky. Well Schremp was never in danger of EVER being anything close to the player Gretzky was… And it is similarly laughable to let Oiler fans dream of Coglino becomming Correy Perry if just given a few more years… Now I know your comparison didn’t cross leagues, or hockey era’s… but the logic is seriously flawed nonetheless. @ Archaeologuy: Willis got you hook line and sinker buddy. Let it go.

What I love is the use of Schremp to try and discredit any argument put up. Kinda like saying "Hitler did that so ...." (in logic its called a straw man). That is flawed logic.

What YOU don't address is that these are simply similar comparables based on numbers. Not wishful thinking (why would we want a Vrbata?). I don't see anywhere that Willis is trying to create a false impression of Cogs, just trying to demonstrate what his statistical comparisons led him to. I hear he does that kind of thing from time to time ;)

Avatar
#57 Archaeologuy
April 30 2009, 10:52AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Chris wrote:

@ Archaeologuy: Willis got you hook line and sinker buddy. Let it go.

I cant be certain, but I am willing to guess that an indepth conversation between myself, Rosscreek, and Ogden Brother was in part the inspiration for looking more in-depth at Cogs' numbers. I have been saying roughly the same kinds of things about Cogs all season, though sans the statistical comparisons.

I've also noticed that you've completely avoided my challenge of contextualizing Cogs' numbers. You cant, so you want the whole comparison thrown out. You have offered no reason why the comparison is wrong, you just dont like the outcome so you dont want to accept it. What is your main argument for its innaccuracy? A phantom analysis projecting OHL production onto NHL production done by some guy for some unnamed source. Great work! Willis only looked at NHL production, hardly the same as trying to project Ethan Moreau's juniour production into NHL super dominance.

Avatar
#58 Jon K
April 30 2009, 10:52AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Chris:

I don't see how this piece is open to criticism about its quality.

It was meant to show that players with Cogliano's NHL track record do sometimes break out to become more proficient offensively, despite only moderate offensive output in their first seasons.

It's not meant to be conclusive, rather it is meant to be permissive in its conclusions.

I may disagree on the ultimate issue of Cogliano's potential, but the work is solid and the findings are founded.

Avatar
#59 Quinn
April 30 2009, 10:52AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Cursed thing is making me appear to post as Q, which I am most definitely not.

Avatar
#60 Hemmertime
April 30 2009, 10:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Chris: Comparing OHL and NHL numbers is entirely different. That and no one denies Schremp will get pts in the NHL - but its his give vs take thats his problem.

From article "While I have repeatedly suggested that Andrew Cogliano may be useful trade bait... this list makes me a little more hesitant to trade him". So its not like Willis goes out and says "lets see how I can make Cogs look good today", seems he was just as surprised as us with the results. I don't understand why some people are bashing the writer for showing numbers, heck even explaining his formula for calculating. I like the outlook on Cog's too, and sure he may not have the size of some of those people on the list, he has different assets like his speed. Doesn't matter how big you are when Afinogenov is the only one on the list that could possibly make up ground on Cogs on a breakaway. Even if he turns into a solid defensive Winger (or learns how to win faceoffs) and puts up 40-50+ pts he will still be one of the best prospects we have developed in awhile. As trade bait, hes one of the players you include on a deal that lands an elite player (Cogs + Gibert... blah blah blah) but I wouldnt like to see him moved for someone who "might" rebound with the Oilers

Avatar
#61 RossCreek
April 30 2009, 11:03AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Archaeologuy: No way Cogliano is 5-10.

Avatar
#62 Milli
April 30 2009, 11:03AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I really like this kid, he has blazing speed and I think will be a diference maker. Him on the 3rd line, I never quite figured that one out.

Avatar
#63 Jonathan Willis
April 30 2009, 11:06AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Jon K wrote:

It’s not meant to be conclusive, rather it is meant to be permissive in its conclusions.

Thanks for that - this is exactly what I was going for. Chris, this wasn't about showing exactly what Cogliano would be, but about re-examining the range of possibilities based on total offensive results rather than style.

The offensive results Cogliano has put up aren't especially limiting although other factors not examined here (size being a key one that has deservedly been brought up) may be. That sentence of Jon's is bang on with respect to my aims with this article.

Avatar
#64 Archaeologuy
April 30 2009, 11:08AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

RossCreek wrote:

@ Archaeologuy: No way Cogliano is 5-10.

We all know the reality here, theyre both probably 5'6 and 140 pounds. Watching the NHL is like watching a Sylvester Stalone movie, we all get the impression that the main characters are 6'2" but in reality everyone needs to sit on a phone book to see over the steering wheel.

Avatar
#65 RossCreek
April 30 2009, 11:09AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I like how everyone just uses Richards & Perry. Weren't Vasicek, Olesz, Bernier & Afinogenov mentioned as well?

Avatar
#66 RossCreek
April 30 2009, 11:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ RossCreek: For the record, I don't see him being Vasicek.

Avatar
#67 Archaeologuy
April 30 2009, 11:16AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ RossCreek: for the record, Bernier has never put up as many points or goals as Cogliano in any season. So i dont see him being like Bernier.

Avatar
#68 Chris
April 30 2009, 11:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

At EVERYBODY!

Whoa. Easy.

These exercises of taking a specific stat (like point totals) and creating a list of players who had similar stats at similar points in their career are POINTLESS.

There is no real foundation for a true cross comparison or serious set of projections. Sorry. It's fun but, but generally a waste of time. You can bet Tambellini isn't building the Oilers roster around the notion that Coglino may develop a high end offensive game. Q wrote:

What I love is the use of Schremp to try and discredit any argument put up

I used Shremp as an example. Yes it's been several years so I can't source the article... but Schremp DID put up similar point totals to Gretzky his last year in JR. That is a fact. Compute it, or justify it any way you want.

C'mon Guys! Coglino has ALREADY exceeded expectations. He is arguably the best performer taken at his position in the draft... Let's not go heaping a pile of unrealistic projections/expectations on his young back. Oiler fans always do this... and it is not fair.

Oilers management brought up Arnott at twenty... He scores 30 goals. So now He's a thirty goal scorer who can project even higher... Untill reality sets in, and the Oiler faithful run the poor guy out of town... Anyone remember Torres? I'm just sayin.

Avatar
#69 Chris
April 30 2009, 11:25AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Jonathan Willis:

Sorry I criticised the quality of your piece. I should have said I am critical of the exercise...

I guess it must be more than just a little fun to compare Coglino's offensive output to that of Richards and then watch many of the regular poster's here go into full daydream mode.

Avatar
#70 RossCreek
April 30 2009, 11:29AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Archaeologuy: Yes, but statistically speaking: Name | First Season | Third Season | Mike Richards | .43 PTS/GM | 1.03 PTS/GM Corey Perry | .45 PTS/GM | .77 PTS/GM Josef Vasicek | .40 PTS/GM | .55 PTS/GM Henrik Sedin | .35 PTS/GM | .50 PTS/GM Maxim Afinogenov | .52 PTS/GM | .49 PTS/GM Rostislav Olesz | .36 PTS/GM | .46 PTS/GM Steve Bernier | .69 PTS/GM | .42 PTS/GM Daniel Sedin | .45 PTS/GM | .39 PTS/GM Radim Vrbata | .58 PTS/GM | .31 PTS/GM

Therefore, you can't just pick & choose which one's are comparible. Either your thought process is: - I believe in this exercise, and therefore must use all comparible names, OR - I do not believe in this exercise, so that list is meaningless.

You can't say he might be Richards or Perry, but he won't be Bernier. That thought process completely condradicts how you think. If stats prove he might be Richards, they also prove he might be Bernier, or worse, Vasicek.

Statistically speaking, of course.

Avatar
#71 Archaeologuy
April 30 2009, 11:29AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Chris wrote:

You can bet Tambellini isn’t building the Oilers roster around the notion that Coglino may develop a high end offensive game.

So its OK to assume that Gagner will develop but not Cogliano despite the fact that they've been in the league for the same amount of time and Cogs has scored more goals than Gagner and was only 3 points behind him? Why? because you dont want him to? He scores 18 goals in his rookie and sophomore season in a 3rd line role both seasons and its ridiculous to think he can do more? Chris wrote:

These exercises of taking a specific stat (like point totals) and creating a list of players who had similar stats at similar points in their career are POINTLESS.

Because you say so? Why dont we just throw out statistics completely and just go on gut feeling from here on out? Good Plan.

Avatar
#72 myteammytown
April 30 2009, 11:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Chris wrote:

At EVERYBODY! Whoa. Easy. These exercises of taking a specific stat (like point totals) and creating a list of players who had similar stats at similar points in their career are POINTLESS. There is no real foundation for a true cross comparison or serious set of projections. Sorry. It’s fun but, but generally a waste of time. You can bet Tambellini isn’t building the Oilers roster around the notion that Coglino may develop a high end offensive game. Q wrote: What I love is the use of Schremp to try and discredit any argument put up I used Shremp as an example. Yes it’s been several years so I can’t source the article… but Schremp DID put up similar point totals to Gretzky his last year in JR. That is a fact. Compute it, or justify it any way you want. C’mon Guys! Coglino has ALREADY exceeded expectations. He is arguably the best performer taken at his position in the draft… Let’s not go heaping a pile of unrealistic projections/expectations on his young back. Oiler fans always do this… and it is not fair. Oilers management brought up Arnott at twenty… He scores 30 goals. So now He’s a thirty goal scorer who can project even higher… Untill reality sets in, and the Oiler faithful run the poor guy out of town… Anyone remember Torres? I’m just sayin.

actually, a decent number of teams are starting to use statistical breakdowns, similar to this one, to try and project what players will be doing in 2-4 years time.

pretty sure it is mike smith, former GM of the blackhawks, who runs a firm that teams hire to do this very thing. the numbers are used for everything from drafting, to UFA signings, to trades, and contract negotiations.

this breakdown by willis is by no means anywhere near as complex as those used by NHL teams, but it is also far from being a "waste of time"

Avatar
#73 Archaeologuy
April 30 2009, 11:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ RossCreek: The numbers themselves cant be doubted, but they all need to be contextualized. Given the Context of Bernier's career I dont think his numbers are all that great. He's been given the opportunity to play with some very elite players in his career.

Avatar
#74 Archaeologuy
April 30 2009, 11:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

RossCreek wrote:

You can’t say he might be Richards or Perry, but he won’t be Bernier.

and you just said he wont be vasicek!?! are you just arguing with me because its fun? because I'm down with that, but I wont be arguing your method if its the same as mine.

Avatar
#75 RossCreek
April 30 2009, 11:40AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Archaeologuy: Really? Elite? Like, you mean on the same team? Cause he never played consistently on a line with Joe Thornton if that's what you're trying to say.

Avatar
#76 RossCreek
April 30 2009, 11:45AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Archaeologuy: RossCreek wrote:

@ RossCreek: For the record, I don’t see him being Vasicek.

I wasn't speaking statistically there. I gave opinion, I didn't dismiss the "holy" statistics.

*A good statistician can come up with stats to prove anything & everything*

I don't personally dismiss stats, but I don't live & die by them either.

Avatar
#77 Archaeologuy
April 30 2009, 11:47AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ RossCreek: he was given opportunity to play with the Sedins and blew it, and his teams overall (Sharks and Nucks, not so much Sabres)have been very very good. I just think that he's been on some good teams with some good players but has yet to reclaim the success of his rookie season (on a ppg basis). And 3 teams in 4 seasons doesnt bode well either.

Avatar
#78 Archaeologuy
April 30 2009, 11:49AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

RossCreek wrote:

I wasn’t speaking statistically there. I gave opinion, I didn’t dismiss the “holy” statistics. *A good statistician can come up with stats to prove anything & everything* I don’t personally dismiss stats, but I don’t live & die by them either.

I didnt dismiss the stats either. I gave my opinion and gave a reason why. It was actually more than you did for Vasicek. Relax.

Avatar
#79 RossCreek
April 30 2009, 11:50AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Archaeologuy: Fair enough. He wouldn't be a bad fit in Oilerland though. But that would make 4 teams in 5 years and thats getting scary. It's sad that sometimes players happen to be coveted by so many teams that they get moved so frequently and essentially destroy their careers, at least temporarily.

Avatar
#80 Chris
April 30 2009, 11:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Archaeologuy wrote:

why dont you come up with some kind of context that explains why Cogs’ numbers are Perry and Richards like

I sort of did. Richards had Coglino like point totals his second year because his shooting percentace was around 6.5%. As Richards became more confident and poised around the net his shooting percentage more than doubled hence the increased production. Do you really expect Coglino to double his shooting percentage over the next few years?

Correy Perry is an absolute BEAST down low... Perry plays the top line on the wing. Last season he took 283 shots on goal, up from less than 200 his second season. So it is fair to say that if Coglino was given more ice time, and better linemates his point totals would probably increase. It is also fair to say that Coglino lacks the size and strength to play the big minutes necessary to generate 283 shots a season.(Last year Coglino took 116 shots) Even if Coglino was able to increase his shot total by taking more shifts against tougher competition, it's unlikly his shooting percentage remains above 15%. Is there a statistical way I can explain to you that Coglino is NOT a first line winger who can retrieve pucks on the shoot-in, cycle it down low, and work his way into the slot for 283 shots a season?

Avatar
#81 RossCreek
April 30 2009, 11:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Archaeologuy: Easy now, I'm not gettin fired up about anything here today. You (& OgdenBrother, shout outs to OB) should know: Our argument the other night just so happened to be the same night the Flames lossed out. A little fired up, I was (although I wouldn't change my stance on said argument). Not to mention I'd been battling the (swine?-jk) flu for the past week. But now I'm making excuses (lol).

Avatar
#82 Archaeologuy
April 30 2009, 12:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Chris wrote:

I sort of did. Richards had Coglino like point totals his second year because his shooting percentace was around 6.5%. As Richards became more confident and poised around the net his shooting percentage more than doubled hence the increased production. Do you really expect Coglino to double his shooting percentage over the next few years?

This line of reasoning is unbelievably broken. He doesnt need to double his percentage, he needs to get more shots. Not that difficult considering he played less than 15 minutes a game and was forced to be a checking Center despite the fact that he lost the faceoff 63% of the time.

Chris wrote:

It is also fair to say that Coglino lacks the size and strength to play the big minutes necessary to generate 283 shots a season

Datsyuk 248 shots, only 1 inch taller and 10 lbs heavier Parise 364 shots, 1 inch and 6 pounds more Cammalleri 255 shots, 1 inch shorter and 1 pound heavier

Your arguments hold no water. try again.

Avatar
#83 Archaeologuy
April 30 2009, 12:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ RossCreek: Its ok, I like our arguments/debates. It's good times.

Avatar
#84 David S
April 30 2009, 12:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

There's at least a couple of guys here who aren't employed or are soon to be unemployed if their boss busts into their cubicle. ;)

BTW - Nice work on this post Jonathan!

Avatar
#85 Chris
April 30 2009, 12:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Archaeologuy:

Datsyuk 248 shots, only 1 inch taller and 10 lbs heavier Parise 364 shots, 1 inch and 6 pounds more Cammalleri 255 shots, 1 inch shorter and 1 pound heavier

This is one of the most ridiculous things you have ever written. The listed physical dimensions of a player from their team website are not only inaccurate but are not true indications of a players strength. All three players are stronger on the puck than Coglino. Will Coglino get stronger... yes. Is Coglino capable of taking 250+ shots on net a season? No. Not unless he completely re-invents his game... or starts playing 27 minutes a night.

As for my shooting percentage logic being flawed... You are dreaming if you think Coglino can maintain a 15% shooting percentage while playing the tough minutes necessary to increase his shot total above 250.

Avatar
#86 Archaeologuy
April 30 2009, 12:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

David S wrote:

There’s at least a couple of guys here who aren’t employed or are soon to be unemployed if their boss busts into their cubicle.

Stupid Arts Degrees:( I only work nights now. Unless anyone here knows someone looking for an Archaeologist specializing in Roman era British Religion *crosses fingers and holds breath*

Avatar
#87 Archaeologuy
April 30 2009, 12:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Chris wrote:

This is one of the most ridiculous things you have ever written. The listed physical dimensions of a player from their team website are not only inaccurate but are not true indications of a players strength.

So then you're the strength and conditioning coach of the Edmonton Oilers, Ducks, Devils, and RedWings and you know what levels they are all at?

Chris wrote:

Is Coglino capable of taking 250+ shots on net a season? No. Not unless he completely re-invents his game… or starts playing 27 minutes a night.

And you know this how? Is there an actual reason you dont think he can raise his shots per season?

Chris wrote:

You are dreaming if you think Coglino can maintain a 15% shooting percentage while playing the tough minutes necessary to increase his shot total above 250.

He's managed to score 18 goals a season on his shooting percentages, it isnt like he was a 4th liner who only took 4 shots on net.

Avatar
#88 Ogden Brother
April 30 2009, 12:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I'm not sure why the two Flame fans are going wild here... after a quick scan of the posts I don't see one person claiming he WILL be Richards/Perry.

Avatar
#89 Chris
April 30 2009, 12:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Archaeologuy wrote:

This line of reasoning is unbelievably broken. He doesnt need to double his percentage, he needs to get more shots

To beat a dead horse. RICHARDS needed to increase his shooting percentage. He did. Richards increased his point totals by improving his shooting percentage. Coglino already has a high shooting percentage. So any increase in Coglino's offensive production is not likely to come from doubling his shooting percentage the way Richards did.

Perry increased his production by increasing his shot total. This is the only way Coglino's numbers will signifigantly go up. By taking more shots. So we leave the rehlm of stats and enter the rehlm of scouting. News flash. Coglino is not Correy Perry. They play differnt positions. They play different styles. Watch some game tape... Even with more ice time, and better linemates Coglino is not likely to increase his shot total from 116 to 283 over the next two seasons.

Conclusion: 1) Coglino is NOT likely to double his shooting percentage. 2) Coglino is not likely to double the number of shots he takes either.

Therefore, Coglino is not likely to see a rise in his offensive numbers that compares to the rise of either Richards or Perry.

I'm pretty sure this line of thinking is reasonable.

Avatar
#90 Chris
April 30 2009, 12:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Ogden Brother: I hope you are not calling ME a flames fan.

Avatar
#91 Archaeologuy
April 30 2009, 01:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Chris: There is no reason to believe Cogliano cant increase his shots in a season. You have no basis for that argument. It is logical to assume Cogliano cant achieve a 30% shooting percentage. It is NOT logical to claim he cant shoot more. He played on a 3rd line that started without the puck 63% of the time and he didnt get much PP time. Changing any of the variables in that equation, which have nothing to do with his quality of play, will increase his shots on net.

Cogliano does not have to be like Perry in order to shoot the puck 200 times in a season. Perry doesnt own the patent to shooting the puck. There are all kinds of players in the league who manage to pull the trigger 200 times in a season. 2.5 shots a game isnt exactly that hard to achieve. That's why your arguments dont work. Richards was able to increase his shots, Perry was able to increase his shots, but Cogliano cant? That isnt an argument, its BS. No one said Cogliano would PLAY like Richards or Perry, his PRODUCTION could be like Richards or Perry. You have given no good reason that is backed up by logic that he cant.

Avatar
#92 Ogden Brother
April 30 2009, 01:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Chris:

Taking Richards specifically: Richards also had 8 PP goals to Cogs 4 with 1:30 more PP time per game.

Give Cogs an extra 90 seconds on the PP every game, what's that get him? 40 extra shots

Richards also plays an extra 200 seconds more 5 on 5... can Cogs handle an extra 100 seconds??? Probalby, Gagner played 13:24 5 on 5.

So we say Cogs is just to weak and frail to handle another three and a half 5 on 5 min/game... so we'll only bump him up to the Gagner's level... giving him an extra 93 seconds per game or 127 min 5 on 5 min. What's that get him? 20 extra shots/year?

60 extra shots 15% shooting % 9 extra goals. 27 goals per year with average top 6 min.

Avatar
#93 Ogden Brother
April 30 2009, 01:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Archaeologuy wrote:

@ Chris: There is no reason to believe Cogliano cant increase his shots in a season. You have no basis for that argument. It is logical to assume Cogliano cant achieve a 30% shooting percentage. It is NOT logical to claim he cant shoot more. He played on a 3rd line that started without the puck 63% of the time and he didnt get much PP time. Changing any of the variables in that equation, which have nothing to do with his quality of play, will increase his shots on net. Cogliano does not have to be like Perry in order to shoot the puck 200 times in a season. Perry doesnt own the patent to shooting the puck. There are all kinds of players in the league who manage to pull the trigger 200 times in a season. 2.5 shots a game isnt exactly that hard to achieve. That’s why your arguments dont work. Richards was able to increase his shots, Perry was able to increase his shots, but Cogliano cant? That isnt an argument, its BS. No one said Cogliano would PLAY like Richards or Perry, his PRODUCTION could be like Richards or Perry. You have given no good reason that is backed up by logic that he cant.

Hemsky, a guy most Oil fans argue doesn't shoot near enough took more the 2.5 shots per game.

In fact, on avg. 3 and 3/4 guys per team average 2.5+ shots/game.

Avatar
#94 Archaeologuy
April 30 2009, 01:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Ogden Brother: ~but there's no way Cogliano can shoot that often~

Avatar
#95 DonDon
April 30 2009, 01:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Tambellini has some really tough choices if he intends to make the new Oilers team bigger, tougher to play against, have puck control capability and be contenders, not pretenders. A team that has balance between grit and skill. There are no elite players on this team, perhaps close are Roloson, Souray and Hemsky, but that is all. He has some additional keepers (Gagne, Visnowsky, Smid, Grebeshkov, Peckham, Pisani). He also has some assets (Gilbert, Cogliano, O'Sullivan, Eberle) that have trade value. The status of UFAs Roloson and Kotalik is unknown at this time. And then there are those players that are questionable as to being NHL calibre (Moreau, Staois, Nilsson, Jacques, Reddox, Brodziak, Pouliot, Stortini, DeLaurier, and McIntyre). Unfortunately, Tambellini inherited too many player contracts and toxic contracts that are immovable (Penner, Horcoff). Needs at least a first and fourth centre, good special team players, one more good face-off man and RH D. There doesn't appear to be any NHL-ready talent on the farm? What a mess.

Avatar
#96 Ogden Brother
April 30 2009, 01:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

DonDon wrote:

Tambellini has some really tough choices if he intends to make the new Oilers team bigger, tougher to play against, have puck control capability and be contenders, not pretenders. A team that has balance between grit and skill. There are no elite players on this team, perhaps close are Roloson, Souray and Hemsky, but that is all. He has some additional keepers (Gagne, Visnowsky, Smid, Grebeshkov, Peckham, Pisani). He also has some assets (Gilbert, Cogliano, O’Sullivan, Eberle) that have trade value. The status of UFAs Roloson and Kotalik is unknown at this time. And then there are those players that are questionable as to being NHL calibre (Moreau, Staois, Nilsson, Jacques, Reddox, Brodziak, Pouliot, Stortini, DeLaurier, and McIntyre). Unfortunately, Tambellini inherited too many player contracts and toxic contracts that are immovable (Penner, Horcoff). Needs at least a first and fourth centre, good special team players, one more good face-off man and RH D. There doesn’t appear to be any NHL-ready talent on the farm? What a mess.

Or it could be a bubble team with lots of assets that are (should be) still improving... as they move up the ranks, so will the team.

Avatar
#97 Chris
April 30 2009, 01:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Archaeologuy:

Okay. Forget the names Perry and Richards. That is the purpose of these lists: to create emotion.

Coglino is a .55 point/GM second year player, who plays around 12 minutes a night and took 116 shots last season. These are very reasonable numbers. Coglino is a good player. What are your expectations for him moving forward? If you expect Coglino to develop into a point/ game guy in the next two seasons... I suspect you will be disappointed... Although, I admit, it's not like I have a crystal ball.

My fear is that Coglino's shooting percentage is more likely to decrease rather than increase over time. Many others like Brownlee, and Gregor share this concern. I have heard both of them comment on Coglino's seemingly unsustainable shooting percentage before. *If I'm mistaken guys... Please feel free to weigh in* In any case, if Coglino were to evolve into a point per game guy he would have to take almost twice as many shots. Simple math. We both agree on this. Problem is, Coglino already plays 12 minutes a night. I just don't see him playing twice as many minutes for the Oilers, or finding another way to double his shot output, while maintaining his shooting percentage.

The most likely scenario, is that Coglino will continue to grow and mature; play more minutes; and see modest point total increase. His shooting percentage which has already declined from 18.4% his first year, (when he took 98 shots), to 15.5% his second year (116 shots); will likely continue to drop off a bit more as his shot total increases. I can't prove this... but that is the trend. Based on trending alone: If Coglino were to play 15-16 minutes a night next season and was able to double his previous increses in shots taken to around 150 while maintaining a 14% shooting percentage the math says he will score 21 goals. Add say a generaous 30 assits and you have a .62 point/GM guy... And I would be very happy with that. (Projects above most of that list)

This is what I call a cautious brand of enthusiasm. I'm not trying to be a killjoy.

Avatar
#98 Archaeologuy
April 30 2009, 02:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Chris: I see your point, but i dont think he needs to double his minutes to double his shots. The situations he has played in have kept his numbers down and he will naturally become stronger. He might not ever become a point per game, but no one on the club was a point per game, so he doesnt have to reach that number before he produces "well". I dont expect him to become Joe Thornton, but he CAN be a very good player for the Oilers for the next 5-6 years before Free Agency.

Avatar
#99 Chris
April 30 2009, 02:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Chris wrote:

by increasing his shot total. This is the only way Coglino’s numbers will signifigantly go up. By taking more shots. So we leave the rehlm of stats and enter the rehlm of scouting.

I have my own reasons to be conservative in my estimation of Cogliano's future shot total increases... It's to do with scoutig the player. *Disclaimer: I'm the first to admit I'm not a professional scout.* Coglino uses his speed to generate much of his offence on the rush...You can't just decide to rush more. Plus I don't buy into the notion that a shots per game ratio would track up in a straight line by simply playing more minutes... (Fatigue aside)

Also with more minutes and better linemates comes tougher opposition. Again I'm tired of repeating this: Coglino is a good player. I like him. His point totals will increase. Let's all just be a little more cautious and realistic with our expectations moving forward.

Avatar
#100 Archaeologuy
April 30 2009, 02:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Chris: No one said he would be Sidney Crosby. I also cant help but think that he would be much more effective offensively on any line which started with the puck more often (ie higher faceoff percentage). Yes the majority of his points were generated by his speed, but what was the other option? Give it to Moreau who will dipsy doodle past 3 guys then wait for Pisani to set him up in the slot? I cant get those guys to do that in video games. I think realistically he can score at least 25 goals in a second line role next year, assuming he gets the PP time.

Comments are closed for this article.